SCARS DISFIGURING

Summary

The Veteran, who served with confirmed service from October 2012 to August 2013, and also participated in inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA) in November 2020, appealed the denial of service connection for a chest scar. The Veteran claimed that during INACDUTRA in November 2020, an ejected bullet casing burned her chest, resulting in a scar. The Board reviewed the Veteran's service records, which confirmed the INACDUTRA period. Medical records from November 2020 documented a healing burn scar on her mid-chest, which later became hypertrophic and received treatment. The Martinsburg VA Medical Center diagnosed a hypertrophic scar. The Board found the evidence for and against the claim to be in approximate balance. Applying the benefit of the doubt doctrine, the Board resolved the reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor. Consequently, service connection for a chest scar was granted.

Rationale

Evidence for and against claim in approximate balance; Benefit of the doubt resolved in Veteran's favor

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26034426
Decision Date: 04/14/26	Archive Date: 04/14/26

DOCKET NO. 250327-531949
DATE: April 14, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for a chest scar is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

Resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, her chest scar was due to an injury during a period of INACDUTRA.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria are met to establish service connection for a chest scar. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.6.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran had confirmed service from October 2012 to August 2013. The Veteran also had service as indicated by the record, to include a period of inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA) from November 14, 2020 to November 16, 2020.

This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2025 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO); by law, the modernized review system, governed by the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies.

In a March 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. The Veteran was advised in a December 2025 correspondence that she had one year from the date the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) mailed the rating decision on appeal, or 60 days from the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, whichever is later, to switch AMA appeal dockets. Williams v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 305 (2024). This period has since expired and the Board will proceed with adjudication.

The Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the February 2025 AOJ rating decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ rating decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801. If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

Service Connection

Service connection is warranted for a disability due to a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

Active military service includes any period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) during which the individual was disabled from a disease or an injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty, or a period of inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA) during which the veteran was disabled or died from an injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty. 38 U.S.C. § 101(24)(B), (C); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(a). 

The Veteran asserted that during a period of INACDUTRA in November 2020, she participated in a rifle qualification exercise and an ejected bullet casing burned her chest resulting in a scar.

The Veteran's service records show that she had a period of INACDUTRA from November 14, 2020 to November 16, 2020.

The Veteran's medical records show that on November 24, 2020, she had a healing burn scar from a bullet casing. Her medical records show that the scar became hypertrophic and that she received treatment.

The rating decision on appeal indicates a current disability; the Martinsburg VA Medical Center notes a diagnosis of a hypertrophic scar on the mid-chest.

As such, when weighing the evidence of record, the Board finds that the evidence for and against the Veteran's claim that she had an injury which culminated in a  chest scar during a period of INACDUTRA is in approximate balance. In such circumstances, the regulations dictate that reasonable doubt is to be resolved in the Veteran's favor.

Accordingly, the criteria have been met to establish service connection for a chest scar, and the claim is granted.

 

 

Jennifer White

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Att
 scar became hypertrophic and that she received treatment.

The rating decision on appeal indicates a current disability; the Martinsburg VA Medical Center notes a diagnosis of a hypertrophic scar on the mid-chest.

As such, when weighing the evidence of record, the Board finds that the evidence for and against the Veteran's claim that she had an injury which culminated in a  chest scar during a period of INACDUTRA is in approximate balance. In such circumstances, the regulations dictate that reasonable doubt is to be resolved in the Veteran's favor.

Accordingly, the criteria have been met to establish service connection for a chest scar, and the claim is granted.

 

 

Jennifer White

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	T. Berryman, Counsel

The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.